Blogging

[Forsher]

Blogs get a pretty bad rap on NSG. I imagine Generalites are also opposed to micro-blogging too, but perhaps the micro nature redeems (although as Tumblr is described as a microblogging site, I guess not). At any rate, when you look at the threads that are locked for being blogs the lock-posts frequently convey a core message of: blogs are for people who are more interested in writing their opinion down than they are in generating discussion. This is probably true.

However, this raises an interesting question. How do you tell when a post is there to record an opinion (a blog post) or there to generate discussion (a forum OP post?)? This thread answers that question. The answer being? Well, a thread post finishes with "What say ye, NSG?" I imagine the NSG is substitutable, unless we now consider ourselves the only forum around .

Well, that's just plain stupid and it is something that Trots (the author of the post in question) thankfully managed to convey to the powers that be. A discussion point does not need to be highlighted explicitly (an understandably emotive Trots described this with "Must I really hold everyone's hand, and give them reading questions like a university lecturer?") in the same way that most of the films mentioned in this thread did not finish with "And the moral of this tale is..." I mean, we all know that Frozen is liberal propaganda without having to have our intellects insulted by a message right at the end from Disney telling us that this is so. Hell, Disney didn't even bother insulting the intellects of the seven year olds it was aiming the film at. Instead, its executives and whatnot told the directors "Chris, Jennifer, we think that it is abundantly obvious that this is a piece of liberal propaganda and we are just checking that you've not included a bit at the end saying that it is." Thus we were saved from this terrible affront and got the highest grossing animated piece liberal propaganda of all time that we all know and slavishly worship (as seen in this excerpt from an NZ documentary made by acclaimed film-makers J R Pryor and B R Boyce).

In the same way that I expect anyone reading this to be able to tell words written seriously apart from those written sarcastically and still manage to understand that there is a serious point in the sarcasm, we should expect that our glorious OP-writers need not include "What say yes". That, instead, we are able to discern what they are wanting us to talk about. But, all this raging about the failure of English instruction in today's schools having resulted in a generation unable to grasp meaning from texts really just distracts from the point of this OP. That is, how to tell a blog from an OP? I've said that we should be able to tell from what is put before us but I haven't actually written about the distinguishing characteristics.

Except, as you clever readers have already noticed, I sort of have. Look back at that definition of a blog in the first paragraph. A post that is actually interested in discussion isn't concealing anything. A blog, on the other hand, is, on the surface, identical... a text with some sort of point. However, the real point is, always, "Listen to what I am saying." That is, blogs inherently involve some level of narcissism or egoism. A blog post masquerading as an OP, then, probably has some concealed purpose and isn't really talking about what a purely surface reading of the text would suggest, right? Of course, I am right. I'm Forsher: the one true reader. Perhaps, for instance, a thread complaining about mods reading telegrams is really a thread about mod oppression more generally. Maybe a thread on the demise of a polling station is really a thread about dem villainous Unionists. No, wait, that's trolling, not blogging... dishonest discussion, at least, if not always trolling.

What I am actually saying, then, is that we can't just go, "That's a blog because it didn't hold my hand". That's insulting our own intelligence... we should be able to tell what the point of something we are reading is without having to have it pointed out (unless it's overly complex and long). Separating a blog from an OP is probably more, or less, a matter of vibe... does it feel like they're really trying to get us to listen to what they think rather than hear what we think about this thing they've brought up? To answer that question, you really need to let the thread go on a bit (unless, of course, the thread is overly self-referential or something). We also need to remember that a concealed point (or a dishonest basis for conversation) isn't necessarily the same dishonesty that we find, necessarily, in blogs (or, at least, the type of blog that we find trying to pass itself off as an opening post in forums like NSG).

So, what say ye, NSG? Is separating blogs from OPs as simple as identifying if there is/are a/some question/s at the end? Or, instead, is a blog post identified more by some nebulous vibe? Is it something else? Have I presented a false dichotomy of question or vibe?

[Parhe]

Sorry I cannot go point by point. I don't enjoy making large quotes on my mobile. Though I copy pasted it to the bottom.

Line between "just a blog," which I believe aren't allowed, and a discussion OP can be blurred. As mentioned even from "just blogs" discussions, or rather points of discussion, can form. I feel a question is often used to convey the message that the post is to began discussion and not merely present the original poster's. It is more having to do with expressing the poster's intent and openness and the post's purpose than it is to do with pinpointing what exactly is being debated. We all know everything in the OP is going to be debated by the people on NSG. I could make a post in detail of my interpretation of Australian history and how everything wrong in the world is China's fault (No, I don't believe this but it is a stand in for a subject making an assumption, connection, and/or argument of sort) but by just creating a new thread just presenting my thoughts or beliefs, no matter how "supported" or detailed, it is a blog, even without rhetoric. As far as a reader may know I, despite posting on NSG, did not open it for discussion. Somewhere there I have to go establish that it is, something not done in the linked thread's OP.

Though it should be mentioned there are other differences between blogs and "discussions." Adding a related question at the end of a posy won't automatically make it not a blog,

So, what say ye, NSG? Is separating blogs from OPs as simple as identifying if there is/are a/some question/s at the end? Or, instead, is a blog post identified more by some nebulous vibe? Is it something else? Have I presented a false dichotomy of question or vibe?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Generally the difference between a blog and a discussion post is brevity and tone.

It shouldn't be too much longer than the average computer screen in an HD resolution, and it should explore the issue and leave it open, rather than lecture about it and seem like you have all the answers. Explain the issue, give your opinion, ask for other's opinions.

Done.

[Forsher]

Generally the difference between a blog and a discussion post is brevity and tone.

It shouldn't be too much longer than the average computer screen in an HD resolution, and it should explore the issue and leave it open, rather than lecture about it and seem like you have all the answers. Explain the issue, give your opinion, ask for other's opinions.

Done.

But this would lead to very shallow posts?

For instance, one's opinion on, say, wage gaps is obviously going to be inextricably connected to the various factors that influence what one is paid (such as seniority, education, etc.). In such a situation, you sort of need to present things in a way that can come across like you have all the answers. Otherwise the alternative pretty much comes down to "Lol, 77 cents" or "Lol, feminazi lies".

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

But this would lead to very shallow posts?

For instance, one's opinion on, say, wage gaps is obviously going to be inextricably connected to the various factors that influence what one is paid (such as seniority, education, etc.). In such a situation, you sort of need to present things in a way that can come across like you have all the answers. Otherwise the alternative pretty much comes down to "Lol, 77 cents" or "Lol, feminazi lies".

Not at all. It's one part learning how to boil your points down to smaller, more succinct portions and one point waiting for other people in the thread to bring up those concerns and then responding to them. One post should not strive to encapsulate the entire issue.

[New Werpland]

There is a very significant difference between an op and a blog.

Any blog will be received with snarky posters making statements related to the blogness overall perceived bad quality of the original post.

Any normal and correct OP will receive significantly less snarky posters.

[Forsher]

But this would lead to very shallow posts?

For instance, one's opinion on, say, wage gaps is obviously going to be inextricably connected to the various factors that influence what one is paid (such as seniority, education, etc.). In such a situation, you sort of need to present things in a way that can come across like you have all the answers. Otherwise the alternative pretty much comes down to "Lol, 77 cents" or "Lol, feminazi lies".

Not at all. It's one part learning how to boil your points down to smaller, more succinct portions and one point waiting for other people in the thread to bring up those concerns and then responding to them. One post should not strive to encapsulate the entire issue.

Why not? Have you posted in a certain kind of thread where ignored details are, shall we say, jumped on. It is better for your own well being to not have to worry about this by, at least, acknowledging this in the initial post (i.e. the OP). Furthermore, you often don't see interesting things enter threads unless you put them in the OP... and with some of our mods being overly narrow in their understanding of the rails you can end up being slapped for derailing...

Brevity and conciseness are all well and good, but some issues are complex enough that you cannot have brief posts, even if one is concise.

There is a very significant difference between an op and a blog.

Any blog will be received with snarky posters making statements related to the blogness overall perceived bad quality of the original post.

Any normal and correct OP will receive significantly less snarky posters.

I'd agree if I didn't have a completely different take on the snarkiness. I see it as an expression of laziness, of people not bothering to see what is there to discuss, rather than an accurate way of determining things like this.

In general, the "Lol, 77 cents" and "Lol, feminazi lies" style threads get more responses than the ones that take the time to actually think about the issues beyond snap judgements because they are simple to respond to. Similarly, threads with no stated opinions will get "Where's your opinion, OP?" or "What do you think?" some brief meta-commentary or jokes and then either a few pages of discussion and a lock or a lock quite quickly. Deciding whether or not a thread is a blog based on the opinions of people who respond in this way just doesn't seem fair.

[Maqo]

Blogging is a little like pornography: I know it when I see it.

Typically a blog (as opposed to discussion) seems to be characterised by length, and lack of a question at the end. Sure, a particular instance may lack one or the other, but its a good start. Opinions being presented as facts are also a good indicator.

I feel strongly like you are referencing Xerographica's latest diatribe, which was locked for blogginess before I could even see it on the first page. I know you (like me) have a strong 'someone is wrong on the internet' syndrome, and X is so very, very wrong, and we hope against hope that THIS time our carefully thought out examples will sway him... but his posts are blogs. Literally, most of them are lifted word-for-word from his blog. X's posts in particular are characterised by an unbelievable unwillingness to engage in honest debate - so his replies are as bloggy as his original post. Other posters starting off with the same topic could develop in to a real discussion, but it seems the mods are well aware of X's hijinks and are justified to nip it in the bud.

[MERIZoC]

So, what say ye, NSG? Is separating blogs from OPs as simple as identifying if there is/are a/some question/s at the end? Or, instead, is a blog post identified more by some nebulous vibe? Is it something else? Have I presented a false dichotomy of question or vibe?

Lol irony.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Blogs get a pretty bad rap on NSG. I imagine Generalites are also opposed to micro-blogging too, but perhaps the micro nature redeems (although as Tumblr is described as a microblogging site, I guess not).

Twitter is the source of all evil and devastation.

- Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh

[The Conez Imperium]

It's a difficult line. They both generate discussion to some extent and both often pose a question.

The difference for me is how much personal opinion is emphasised in the OP.

[Pope Joan]

Journalists who can no longer get a column in print have resorted to making blogs.

So, to me, a blogger is a journalist.

All you really need to be a blogger is an opinion and a little information.

It seems to me that most journalist/bloggers are like most talk show host; they do not really want debate. If a guest has a differing view, they get shouted down.

[Godular]

>thar be words here!<

And the difference is: he asked a question to get debate going. You typed a lot and only seem interested in positive reviews.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Xerographica: You are not the subject of this thread. Let's avoid attempting to change that so you are, thanks.

Blog post vs Discussion post decisions are actually fairly simple to make. It has nothing to do with the length of the OP. That can be shorter, if the purpose can be summed up rather succinctly, or it can be full of references, thoughts, opinions, and points of discussion. That's all good in my book.

When all you are doing is posting to see yourself post, however - when you are talking at other posters rather than engaging other posters in actual discussion - whether or not someone can eventually develop some discussion from a bloggy OP - that's posting a blog. You're simply presenting your opinion in such a way that does not immediately invite discussion. It leaves little for others to easily engage with. It comes across as fact, as instruction, as an info-post rather than 'Here, I have something I would like to discuss with the rest of you'.

The fact that some have a difficulty in understanding this is, quite frankly, their problem. But we have traditionally attempted to avoid these sorts of posts, as they are better suited to the blogsites, and other personal pontification sorts of boards.

Hopefully that helps explain a bit, folks.

[Xerographica]

Xerographica: You are not the subject of this thread. Let's avoid attempting to change that so you are, thanks.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you deleted my posts from this thread. Because that's sure a lot easier than actually addressing my arguments.

But if you truly don't want this post to be about me... then why didn't you delete Maqo's post as well?

[Forsher]

Typically a blog (as opposed to discussion) seems to be characterised by length, and lack of a question at the end. Sure, a particular instance may lack one or the other, but its a good start. Opinions being presented as facts are also a good indicator.

I think, on reflection, there is not particularly much on which we disagree in your post.

I also agree that it is a shame that there are some posts, were they not followed up by a similar style of response, that would not be blogs, but because they are followed up by that it is only fair to characterise them as blogs. However, I am not so sure it is fair to characterise them as blogs before they get a chance for the context of the replies to appear...

So, what say ye, NSG? Is separating blogs from OPs as simple as identifying if there is/are a/some question/s at the end? Or, instead, is a blog post identified more by some nebulous vibe? Is it something else? Have I presented a false dichotomy of question or vibe?

Lol irony.

You caught me, I have a pattern. Warning, the spoiler is literally nothing more than a series of quotes from OP's I have made in the past. I believe this is relevant but mostly it was a way of whiling away the time. If you do choose to torture with reading them, removed from the context, some are potentially amusing but a lot are little more rewarding than reading pages of "sauce", "troll" or "inb4lock".

What say ye, NSG? Are my ideas on teachers, grades and homework correct?

So, yeah, NSG... what do you think about the topics of a) specific gender scholarships and b) male teachers? Also, the 30% figure is from (16.5 + 41.2)/200 = 28.85%.

Yeah, so what say ye NSG? Do you keep your old school/work stuff? Do you do so consciously? If so, what is your reason for keeping/not keeping? Are there any further implications?

So, NSG, should parents be wary of technology and the development of their young children?

So, what say ye NSG? Should we make better use of things I haven't really mentioned here like technology, flipped classrooms, tactile learning, streaming and a whole host of other things? Am I right in thinking that a talk at the learners approach isn't so useful?

So, what say ye NSG? Would you vote for the party your weighted result says you're most similar to (if you could)?

So, what about you NSG? What level of education do you have and why? Are you looking to go further or is whatever you're up to your current plan? If you're still in education how are you finding it? Any other relevant thoughts?

So, what say ye NSG? To your mind, is there any validity to this idea that some of the pay gap could be explained by social concerns of employees? Is there some better explanation of this idea out there that you're familiar with? (Discussion of the pay gap and other causes are clearly on topic, that first paragraph was just me trying to avoid having to talk about them.)

It then goes on to talk about people who, it appears, were happier paying more anyway... by talking to someone who isn't. But, that's he article. I've stated my opinion, what say ye NSG?

With that one the OP as it currently is looks a little different as I was convinced that I was being stupid by the thread and updated the OP to reflect that.

What about you, NSG?

What about you lot?

So, that's the discussion point of this thread: do we care enough about education? Naturally, should we care about education? (yes, it's for the future, human investment) is also within the realms of this thread. It isn't as though controversy doesn't exist...

I mean, woah, there's a big gap between these last two.

This is really the main question here. Do you support paper abortions and abortions? I do, it is in the name of fairness and equality after all.

Again, opinion has changed. In fact, I thought up a brilliant counter-position that I think is probably frequently held but I can never remember it (all I remember is "Ah, I thought up this brilliant counter position"). Also, thread deliberately almost entirely copied an earlier OP of mine.

So, because I hunt down and rutlessly identify snarks, there are three questions. Firstly, is spelling unnecessary? Secondly, is spelling becoming obsolete? And, lastly, is spelling reform needed? No, no, no.

Not sure if that's a deliberate error and can't be bothered checking.

So, the points for discussion now my opinion is known are:

• Can one win a NSG argument? (Not to the extent one gets recognition for doing so.)
• Can sides win? (Yes, us versus the troll, I think anyone who sides with the flow agrees that they emerge victorious.)
• What is the best way to choose the victor? (Last man standing, as it were.)

So, does NSG agree with me? Is money being spent unwisely? (Yes, in my eyes.) Is this easily solved? (Sort of, if you ask me.) Is how money is spent at the heart of educations problems where you live? (Maybe; Education Ministers may be more to blame.) Have I covered this topic appropriately/correctly? (I, obviously, say yes.)

Bloggy element in that last question.

So, to conclude, the points of discussion are: is it reasonable to treat digital possessions as being different to physical ones? and is it better to be remembered? I say yes to both.

What do you think?

So, do you wear glasses? I hope my poll is comprehensive and I haven't overlooked any options. What do you think of glasses (I think they're great if you haven't guessed already)? Naturally the thread is open to all, unless I did something wrong and it needs locking (which would be a first for me).

Obviously out there there are people with more, well, life experience than I. So, I'll make a poll and you can state your heights or just make remarks like I have.

It's the same principle.

Do we agree?

Now I'm going to say that it is all about context. In some situations to give class a value, that is to say one ascribes ones class to ones wealth, is correct and others it is wrong. Often the same can be said of mentality. However, one can rest certain that the compromise presented by the definitions will mean they are always supportably right if they follow that position. So, as always, I ask if I am correct, although I'm not sure how to end this now I've begun...

So, are my views with regards to television correct? (And by the way the ABC is TVNZ's vast superior, Aussies.)

So, what do we think?

So, is this the most remarkable breakthrough of the generation? Or is the hiding away in the dunny more symbolic than I thought? Is God a Grammar Nazi?

This I think is the first sign that there is something seriously wrong. So, do you lot also dislike Facebook? Is investing a good idea? Will it go from strength to strength or are we in its zenith?

For God's sake man, that is the way it should be. Who agrees?

This is really the main question here. Do you support paper abortions and abortions? I do, it is in the name of fairness and equality after all.

Refer to note on the near copy of this thread.

So, do you support a ban on smoking? How would you go about it? What are your general views on it? Please be sensible.

Is this a good thing? It is scarcely believable that I ask such a seemingly obvious question but those infamous posters attract posts. That must be good, The Awesome Quotes thread has found many posts from such threads. Does this outweigh the overwhelming urge to cry Inb4lock? I thinks so. These infamous posters are, well, interesting to have around.

Would you feel similarly as the Finns if your nation had something like this happen to them? I would. Mainly because of something known as small nation syndrome.

Am I correct in my analysis, if it can be called that? Does NSG disagree by less than degree?

So what does NSG think of the Empire? Is it also a fan? (Mind you, don't take that OP as enough to form an opinion. It is an argument after all.)

Should we have a bread thread? Is it as worthwhile as I think?

Should we care about the deaths of the oldest anything? I say not. Why? Well, it's pretty much the same as the youngest anything as well. What is bound to happen is that people just get hyper-stressed and ultimately the mark is pointless. There will almost always be someone/thing out there that will beat the mark.

So, NSG, what would you do to fix education in a country or countries of your choice?

I have three questions:

1) Is it better to spend little when you learn more, or should you do what the article thinks you should do?

2) Why?

3) What would you do/think you would do/do you do?

Oh, I forgot, I disagree, who's with me?

Now that this magnum OPus is concluded, we come to the point of discussion. Is education, especially that of NZ but not exclusively, as screwed up as we lilke to think?

In other words, of the 81 OPs that Forsher has intentionally posted to NSG, 39 (excluding this one) have the "questions at the end format". This means that 41 don't and it's only the most recent ones that have anything in the specific shape of "What say ye, NSG?" I may, earlier on, have been deliberately trying to avoid that construction. I excluded this thread because the post is somewhat more self-aware than the majority of the OPs I have written. Also, as a brief note, I think two of my OPs received no replies, quite a few failed to hit two pages (i.e. failed as conversation starters, which is the point of OPs) and only one (intentional) OP was locked (for gravedigging).

In the context of this thread, this particular OP is of great interest. Why? Well, specifically identifies features that look sort of similar to this:

Explain the issue, give your opinion, ask for other's opinions.

(Brief contextual information.)

(Topic to discuss.)

(OP's opinion.)

The difference is that it doesn't ask for the opinion of others and, in hindsight, seems sort of bloggy... despite being one of my more successful conversation starters at 19 pages.

This is also my own personal contribution to minimum wage threads... also fairly bloggy. Hell, it's nothing more than just asking people if they agree with a post I wrote for another thread.

When all you are doing is posting to see yourself post, however - when you are talking at other posters rather than engaging other posters in actual discussion - whether or not someone can eventually develop some discussion from a bloggy OP - that's posting a blog. You're simply presenting your opinion in such a way that does not immediately invite discussion. It leaves little for others to easily engage with. It comes across as fact, as instruction, as an info-post rather than 'Here, I have something I would like to discuss with the rest of you'.

See, that's the issue that I have with the blog rule as we understand and apply it: if the conversation is good but the OP is bad, judge the thread not one what you'd predict based on the OP but on the conversation as it actually happened.

That's obviously not perfect. I don't think that Trots' post is a blog but I do think it led to a pretty poor conversation... in part because despite what I wrote in the OP, I have little faith in NSG's ability to take the time to look beyond that surface level of the post. For instance, one of the OP's I made that lacked the end with the question (footnotes aside*) structure, was meant to be about the nature of a squabble between two people but the thread itself was unable to move beyond that and became (to my irritation and/or anger) just about the squabble.

The format of the OP, in fact, is very similar. The difference is that the central questions and topics are really place in the middle or directly at the start of the thread. In terms of how things work in practice, I would have to agree with this comment from the "Bread and Circuses" thread:

a simple "What say ye, NSG?" is enough to rescue a bloggy OP.

Again, contrary to what I put in the OP and to how I responded to ROT?/Russel?/Teapot? the pragmatic OP writer should know that it's probably easiest for all involved to stick to the insultingly simple formula seen in the two quotes in the middle of this post. Provide some context (if needed), a bit of explanation, your opinion and the prompt. In a theoretical sense, Trots, my OP and DLN's comments in this section are (to my mind), absolutely correct... even if you sometimes do need to look at how the OP follows the OP up to be certain.

*For instance, like this... a few of the spoilered quotes should have these attached.